It has been satisfactorily shown that we indeed have an extended interregnum. But it is also shown that our present circumstance is no "mere" extended interregnum, as there are a great many other things also going on, the creation of a new and parallel society, the gradual corruption (defection) of that society away from the Catholic Faith, the leader of this alien new society being mistaken for a Pope (one really has to wonder how in the world that could have happened, that so many could be so easily fooled, but obviously indeed they were for that lays before our very eyes for everyone to see).

We are in agreement, and this is really all I've asked. I do not see it as an interregnum. Even though you do, you also recognize the new and parallel society as a defection. I was never trying to trap you (or anyone else) into a corner. Vatican II was a defection. I think we've solved that.

You are going to have to show evidence, even if it is from a media source, that indicated a group of officials, who were formerly Catholic, went to the Vatican and put on a Catholic council for several years. Until you do otherwise, plain and simple, those were Catholics, from the Roman Catholic Church who were at Vatican II.

You need me to prove to you that Vatican II happened as a historical event? This has descended into madness.

No, this was not what I asked. We'll let this one go so the conversation is not side tracked.

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals).

The "whole Church" remained pristine. Neither the Church as a whole, nor any part of it CONTINUING AS PART OF IT fell into error. Those who schismatically separated themselves from it however rapidly also then fell into error and heresy. Sorry if my phraseology was less than clear.

I neither, ever, claimed the entire church fell into heresy. My point was that if even some did, that would constitute a defection. I have never made any disparaging comments to any traditionalists either in this thread. The only point was that the mere fact you have traditionalists on one said saying to the Vatican II "apparatus", "No." And the Novus Ordo in existence, proved there was a defection at some point.

(Need I state the obvious?) The presence of traditionalists proves the existence of the Church, for we traditionalists ARE, ALONE, the Church, whole and entire. If (per impossible, and I do maintain dogmatically that it is impossible) we traditionalists were to have all disappeared, then the Church will have disappeared. When the last member of a family (with no heirs) dies, then the family has died.

There are still millions (and once close to a billion) who all (at least nominally) believed and practiced and worshipped precisely as we traditionalists still do (back in the days before Vatican II), but now no longer; that is what constitutes a defection. They left the Church and then vanished into heresy.

Have you even read a word I have said? Such a statement as this gives me sound basis to believe you have not. "no defection of those that went outside" ?!?!? It is precisely those that went outside who then defected.

I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.

I think the original question was an interesting one, but it has been answered to the uttermost degree, so I for one see little purpose for the continuance of this thread. But a host of other topics have come up and some of these latest posts of Vinn are very disturbing in their bizarreness, e.g.: "He: How many children do you have? She: Tomato soup."

We've come to an agreement on the fact Vatican II was a defection. So perhaps you are right and we'll have to move on?

I have not considered the issue, nor do I think it important to consider. Since great theologians through history have been split on the issue and there is evidently no magisterial teaching on the matter, it is clearly a matter that can continue to be debated by those qualified to do so. I am not one of those individuals.

However, those men did, indeed, claim the papacy so they are papal claimants whether they ever attained the office of the papacy or not. All anti-popes are, by definition, papal claimants or they wouldn't be anti-popes. In any event, whether any of them were ever valid popes or not is not truly relevant to the question of sedevacantism today. All that is relevant is that one may positively know a person is not a Catholic (and therefore not a pope) when one publicly defects from the faith by proclaiming heresy.

The remainder of your post simply makes no sense. I truly don't know what you're saying unless you are trying to say that what was taught before Vatican 2 is completely compatible with what has been taught since Vatican 2 in which case, we have absolutely no common ground on which to discuss any of this.

"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope].Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." - Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., On the Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, 1927; (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/)

Due to the fact you do not know what an anti-pope actually is you keep calling all the popes after John XXIII "anti-popes." As you mentioned in an earlier post there is dispute about the legitimacy of John XXIII, and therefore there is dispute as to whether he was actually elected (I assume you meant as to whether it was Siri instead.) So in that case, if it was Siri who was elected, then one can make the argument John XXIII became an anti-pope. You throw around the term anti-pope quite loosely in regards to everyone after John XXIII. If Paul VI is an anti-pope, who was validly elected instead? If JP1 is an anti-pope who was validly elected instead? If JP II is an anti-pope who was validly elected instead? If Benedict XVI was an anti-pope who was validly elected instead? In the Great Western Schism you had real popes and then papal claimants, i.e. anti-popes. You apply the term to the conciliar popes you don't accept. You not accepting them does not prove them as anti-popes.

This is another reason you accuse me of not making sense. You are confused about the terms you use and sometime I wonder if you even understand them. Here is one such example. On February 4, 2017, in reply #7 you wrote, "So, I would contend that sedevacantists today are in full agreement with St. Bellarmine in regards to the fourth opinion, in that we accept the opinion that the pope could be a heretic (at least, occultly) but could never define anything to be believed by the whole Church." I missed it if Bellarmine taught somewhere the Pope could be an occult heretic. As I stated in my OP, "The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy. It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy." You said you were in agreement with Bellarmine the pope could become a heretic (even if occultly.) Where did Bellarmine say this? This is what spurned the entire debate about infallibility and indefectibility and whether the Pope would remain infallible even in his private capacity. Otherwise, it was sure he would definitely fall into heresy. Apparently you say without a doubt he would. I have stood against this position and stated no it was not possible the Pope would fall privately (even occultly) or publicly.

Rather than attempt to at least have an honest conversation, you dismiss me with feigning complete bewilderment at my comments so you can just dismiss them and act as though there is no common ground. Fine dismiss me, but please deal with the comment of Cardinal Billot above please.

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals).

Yes. We are in agreement again. I never said this didn't happen at Vatican II. If anyone has proved it had, it is the sedevacantists.

The issue I have been taking up, (which maybe it will require its own thread) is that now we have to deal with the indefectible church defecting. You say it is so. I say it is so. Therefore, we must now discuss what defection means in the church we were promised was indefectible.

Wrong. NONE of us are saying that the Catholic Church defected. You are saying it has. I think you believe that Vatican II has to mean that the Catholic Church has defected. We have never said that. We have shown in many ways why it hasn't, yet you still believe that we are agreeing with you.

Logged

"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)

Then why don't define the term for me. I'll start by noting the definition from Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote

A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.

The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition since an anti-pope remains anti-pope even if a canonically elected pontiff does not reign. Thus, I have been using the term to mean: A false claimant of the Holy See.

If you like, simply replace any time I use "anti-pope" with "a false claimant of the Holy See".